Delhi District Court
State vs . Mohd Ibrahim on 22 November, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. KAPIL KUMAR, MM-06,
(NORTH)ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
State Vs. Mohd Ibrahim
PS. Adarsh Nagar
1. FIR No. : 494/01
2. Date of Offence : 31.10.2001
3. Name of the complainant : Baccha Singh
S/o Sh Kapil Dev Singh
R/o Jhuggi no. N-36A/401,
Block J Lakhi Park, Jahangir
Puri, Delhi.
4. Name, parentage and Address : Ibrahim Bhatt
of the accused S/o Sh Ghulam Bhatt
R/o Village Sangam
Maharaya, PS Vijavhara,
District Anant Naag, J&K.
5. Offences complained of : 279/304 A IPC.
6. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
7. Sentence or final order : Acquitted.
8. Date of order : 22.11.2016
9. Unique ID No. : 02401R0412002002
JUDGMENT
FIR no. 494/01 Unique ID no. 02401R0412002002 1/6
1. The case of the prosecution against the accused is that on 31.10.2001 at 1:30 PM at right side of Y point red light Azad Pur, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Adarsh Nagar accused was found driving a truck no. JK 03 3859 in rash and negligent manner and struck against a cyclist namely Bacha Singh and caused his death.
2. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused. The copy of charge-sheet and annexed documents were supplied to accused in compliance of Section 207 Cr. P.C. Thereafter notice under Section 279/304A IPC was served upon the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In support of its version, prosecution examined 9 witnesses. PW-1 is SI Hukum Chand, PW-2 is Retd ASI Devender, PW-3 is Sh Hare Ram, PW-4 is Ct Anand, PW-5 is Dr Rakesh Kumar, PW-6 is SI Naresh Bhatia, PW-7 is Rajesh Rohilla, PW-8 is HC Ravinder Kumar and PW-9 is ASI Ashok Kumar.
4. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded.
Accused opted not to lead DE.
5. I have heard Ld. APP for State and Ld Counsel for accused. I have perused the record.
6. It is the cardinal principle of Criminal Justice delivery system that the prosecution has to prove the guilt of accused persons beyond reasonable doubts. No matter how weak the defence of accused but, the golden rule of the Criminal Jurisprudence is that the case of the prosecution has to stand on its FIR no. 494/01 Unique ID no. 02401R0412002002 2/6 own leg.
7. The accused has been charged U/s 279,304 A IPC which deals with the death caused by doing any rash or negligent where such death is caused neither intentionally nor with the knowledge that the act of the offender is likely to cause death. The applicability of Section 304 A IPC is limited to rash or negligent acts which cause death but fall short of culpable homicide amounting to murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder. An essential element to attract Section 304 A IPC is death caused due to rash and negligent act. The three things which are required to be proved for an offence under Section 304 A are 1. death of human being; 2. The accused caused the death and 3. The death was caused by the doing of a rash or negligent act, though it did not amount to culpable homicide of either description.
8. The prosecution has examined only one alleged eye witness of the present case who is Ct Anand, examined as PW-4. PW-4 deposed that on 21.10.2001 he was posted at PS Model Town as constable and on that day at about 1:30 PM he was coming on his personal motorcycle from Model Town. When he reached at Y Point Azad Pur he noticed a truck no. JK 03 3839 coming from the side of Azad Pur in a high speed. He deposed that the driver of truck took a sudden turn to the right on Y point and ran over a cyclist and tried to ran away. PW-4 further deposed that he chased that truck by his motorcycle and got that stopped at some distance. He asked the conductor of the truck about the driver who was not in the truck when he reached to the truck. Conductor told that driver had gone to hospital with the injured. Conductor told the name of driver as Ibrahim. HC Ashok recorded the statement of PW-4. PW-4 further deposed FIR no. 494/01 Unique ID no. 02401R0412002002 3/6 that he had not seen the driver of truck.
9. PW-4 was declared hostile and was cross-examined by Ld APP. In the cross- examination he denied the suggestion of Ld APP that he told to HC Ashok in his statement that the driver of the truck stopped the truck at the spot and came down to see the injured. He denied the suggestion that he along with the conductor took out the injured from under the tyres of the truck. He deposed that he do not remember whether the site plan was prepared at his instance or not.
10. PW-4 was not able to identify the accused. He deposed that he had not seen the driver of the truck. In the cross-examination by Ld APP no question was put to PW-4 regarding the identity of accused being the offender of the present case. The reason of the same is best known to Ld APP. It is to be again reminded here that PW-4 is the sole eye witness of the present case but not cross-examined on behalf of the State qua the identity of accused. Thus in the testimony of PW-4 the identity of accused the driver of offending truck not established. There is no other direct witness qua the identification of the accused. This is fatal to the case of prosecution and accused is entitled to benefit of the same.
11. Further PW-4 deposed that the accident took place on 21.10.2001. On the other hand the date of alleged accident is 31.10.2001. This is also a material contradiction but not explained on behalf of the state in the cross-examination of PW-4. Further, PW-4 deposed that he do not remember whether the site plan was prepared at his instance or not. PW-4 is not a common person rather he is a FIR no. 494/01 Unique ID no. 02401R0412002002 4/6 police officer. The deposition of PW-4 qua the site plan is also against the case of prosecution. The other contradiction is related to the registration number of the offending truck. PW-4 deposed that accident was caused with vehicle no. JK 03 3839. On the other hand the case of prosecution the registration of offending vehicle is JK 03 3859. This contradiction not explained on behalf of the state in the cross-examination of PW-4.
12. Besides all these, PW-4 deposed that he chased the offending truck from his motorcycle and got the truck stopped at some distance. He further deposed that he asked the conductor as to where is driver of the truck. Conductor told him that driver went to hospital with the injured. This is strange deposition of PW-
4. PW-4 nowhere deposed that accused fled away from the spot. Rather he deposed that accused tried to ran away after committing the accident. If there was no driver in the truck then how the truck was being driven and chased by PW-4. All these facts lead to only one conclusion that the testimony of PW-4 is not reliable.
13. The other witnesses of the present case are formal witnesses being the doctor, mechanical expert and witnesses to the investigation. Their testimony is not sufficient for conviction of accused.
14. It is well settled law that suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof and there is huge difference between something that 'may be proved' and 'will be proved'. In criminal trial, suspicion no matter how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof. The large gap between ' may be true' and 'must be true', must be covered by way of clear, FIR no. 494/01 Unique ID no. 02401R0412002002 5/6 cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by the prosecution before the accused could be condemned as convict. Reliance could be place upon Judgment titled as Hanumant Govind Nargundkar & anr. Vs State of M.P., AIR 1952 SC 343; Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. Vs. State of Maharastrra, AIR 1973 SC 2622; Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharasthra, AIR 1984 SC 1622; Subhash Chand Vs State of Rajasthan, (2002) 1 SCC 702; Ashish Batham vs State of MP AIR 2002 SC 3206; Narendera Singh & Anr Vs State of MP., AIR 2004 SC3249; State through CBI Vs Mahender Singh Dahiya, AIR 2011 SC 1017; and Ramesh Harijan Vs State of U.P AIR 2012 SC 1979.
15. Thus in view of above discussion, there are several gaps in the case of prosecution and the prosecution is not able to discharge its burden of proof. Accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. He is hereby acquitted from the present case.
Bail Bonds U/s 437 A Cr. PC furnished by the accused.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court (KAPIL KUMAR)
on 22.11.2016 Metropolitan Magistrate-06
North District, Rohini Court
FIR no. 494/01 Unique ID no. 02401R0412002002 6/6
FIR no. 494/01
PS. Adarsh Nagar
22.11.2016
Present: Ld. APP for the state.
Accused with counsel Sh. V.S Yadav.
Vide separate judgment of even date, announced in open court, accused Mohd Ibrahim is hereby acquitted from the present case.
Bail bonds as per section 437A Cr.PC taken from the accused along with his latest photograph and residential proof.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
(Kapil Kumar)
MM06, North District
Rohini Courts,Delhi/22.11.2016
FIR no. 494/01 Unique ID no. 02401R0412002002 7/6